The Most Important Blog... Ever

5 Responses to “Top 20 Voting Problems”

1. # Phil 7:30 AM, December 08, 2004

   How did Clinton win two terms under these conditions? Or were things different in those elections?  

2. # Bob 11:49 AM, December 08, 2004

   ooooooooooooh! phil got you with an incredibly original and clever rejoinder. you gonna take that?  

3. # Erik 10:14 AM, December 09, 2004

   Phil, yes, I can assure you that "things" are very different in 2004 than they were in 1996. I love it when conservatives try to get zingers like this. "Just look at Clinton!" comes out about every other argument. I'll respond this time, but I think this is ridiculous, Phil.
   
   I think there were far fewer Diebold touch-screen ballot machines, and there were probably ZERO paperless ballots in 1996. That difference alone is enough. In 1996 and 1992, there were also ZERO CEO's of companies building our electoral infrastructure promising to swing the election for one candidate.
   
   And let's not forget that Clinton never got more than 50% of the popular vote. And let's also not forget that Republicans tried absolutely everything to sabotage the Clinton presidency, including an obnoxious impeachment for bullshit reasons.
   
   And, I'm not defending the electoral system in 1996 just because Clinton won. I think there were serious problems with the 1996 electoral system -- it was run by partisans. Same problem exists right now. It needs to change.
   
   Unfortunately, conservative blow-hards like Phil will defend the current electoral system simply because Bush won. Way to be short-sighted. Look, Phil, wouldn't it be better if there were no questions about the legitimacy of Bush's election? Wouldn't it be great and simple to have paper receipts for each and every electronic ballot? And wouldn't it be better if non-partisan people were counting the ballots?
   
   Wow. Who knew that this argument would be so difficult. You guys love your Bush, don't ya?  

4. # Phil 7:43 AM, December 11, 2004

   Yes, the President prior to Bush for 8 years was Clinton. Wouldn't it be most relevant to bring up the President prior to Bush in an attempt to discern the validity of the claims that our system is fucked up?
   
   Some of the following questions may involve some research. If you want to take them up, great, if not that's fine to, don't feel like I'm demanding you to do work you don't want to do. It's just an opportunity for you to solidify your position with some hard facts. You could even do so without interjecting insults, like calling me a "blowhard" and "short-sighted" when I said nothing offensive to you in my query. I will break your post down into pieces just to make things easier, if only on me.
   
   "I think there were far fewer Diebold touch-screen ballot machines, and there were probably ZERO paperless ballots in 1996. That difference alone is enough."
   
   Where is this information from?
   
   "In 1996 and 1992, there were also ZERO CEO's of companies building our electoral infrastructure promising to swing the election for one candidate."
   
   Who was the Diebold CEO in these years? If it was someone different, who? If it was the same person, did he have the same political views as before? As for the comment I disagree with the significance of it. He wanted Bush to win and could have meant he would do what he could to get people to vote for Bush. Wouldn't it be stupid for him to make this comment with the intent some liberals are inferring, that he would help rig an election?
   
   "And let's not forget that Clinton never got more than 50% of the popular vote."
   
   True, and two things contributed to that. Ross Perot was a successful third-party candidate, and voter turnout was higher this election.
   
   "And let's also not forget that Republicans tried absolutely everything to sabotage the Clinton presidency, including an obnoxious impeachment for bullshit reasons."
   
   Not sure how this is relevant as this took place after his re-election.
   
   Anyway if you have a plan as to how you would get America to adopt an impartial system I'd love to hear it. I did read your past posts about other countries who use allegedly impartial systems, but what would be a step-by-step plan to get that here? And how would you get impartial people to care enough about a job like that?
   
   Reminder: read 2nd to last sentence in 2nd paragraph of this post.  

5. # Erik 1:01 PM, December 23, 2004

   Phil, I regret if you feel personally offended by my characterazation of you. I obviously do not know you personally, and I do regret calling you a blow-hard. But from what I do know of you -- your posts on my blog for which I am grateful when they present responsible opposition -- your opinions often simply parrot conservative talk-show style tactics for defending President Bush at all costs. I think that I am justified in calling your opinions short-sighted, because you are defending a clearly flawed electoral system simply because your candidate happened to win this one time. In the future, our positions might very well be reversed. In other words, you are being short-sighted by not considering the systemic problem that will persist beyond this one instance, an instance that happened to be successful for you.
   
   One of the most-often used conservative tactics is refering to Clinton. Phil, you could have presented evidence that Clinton's election victory was the result of Secretaries of State like Blackwell or Harris intentionally doing everything they could to suppress the vote for Dole. There is absolutely no evidence of that.
   
   Instead, you chose to use the simpler tactic of asking "where did you get that from." I'll be happy to point out that there have been dozens of news stories over the past four years about the new paperless touch-screen Diebold ballot machines, used widely for the first time in the 2000's. They simply were not a significant factor for Clinton or any election prior to the 21st century. Here's one example of a press release from a source you should trust, the Georgia Secretary of State's office. There are many news stories confirming that the 2004 election was the first time these machines -- with significant vulnerability to tampering -- were widely used in a US presidential election. Specifically, in 1996, only 7.7% of the registered voters in the US used touch-screen voting systems. I think far more Ohioans alone used these machines in 2004, making these flawed machines and their flawed CEO a factor for the first time in 2004.
   
   Clinton's impeachement is relevant because his presidency faced persistent legal troubles brought by conservative Republicans for the express reason of discrediting him and the Democrats. This continues to this day thanks to people bringing up Clinton to deflect almost any criticism of Bush. I never defended Clinton's election, and yet here I am talking about Clinton instead of Bush. I'm done with that.
   
   I think it would be extremely simple to get America to adopt a system similar to those in just about every other democracy in the world. Look at Great Britain for an example. They instituted a similar reform just a few years ago.
   
   All we have to do is get the word out that having partisians like Harris and Blackwell in charge of running elections is ridiculous. Then, simply get people from both parties to come together and demand that a new system get set up in their state that requres a non-partisan, independent electoral commission.
   
   You'll probably say this is a pipe dream. Well, I will again say that such an opinion is short-sighted. If we stop bickering about Clinton and Bush and make this about the system itself -- which is clearly flawed -- then we can move ahead. There are already groups working on this, including Fairvote. Go talk to them, Phil.
   
   I hope that we can continue to have a wholesome debate on this and other issues, Phil, and I pledge to leave the personal attacks out of it, but I also pledge to call you out if you try to use Limbaugh-style tactics to deflect criticism of your positions. I applaud you for your willingness to consider alternative viewpoints and your open mind. I hope that we can continue to challenge one another in a constructive way.
   
   Happy New Year, Phil,
   
   Erik  

Links to this post

 
<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>   <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> on <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>